WGA to review COTM

[zuma]

This motion has passed:

Whereas the purpose of the WGA’s Cache of the Month program is twofold, first to highlight some of Wisconsin’s more interesting caches, and second to build interest in WGA membership among geocachers in Wisconsin.

Whereas the current format of the COTM is currently achieving those desired much of the time. Whereas, at times, issues have made it seem that the current structure of the COTM is not achieving our goals of increasing membership or highlighting special caches.

Be it resolved that the WGA will look at revising and fine tuning the COTM procedures in a three step fashion.

Step One will call for the issue to be referred to the Membership Committee for review. The Membership Committee may poll the membership and seek membership views in preparing a plan of action in revising the COTM procedure.

Step Two will call for the full Board of Directors to revise as neeed and vote on the plan of action developed by the Membership Committee.

Step Three will call for the Board to refer the COTM plan of action to the Web Committee for implemention.

[zuma]

The membership committee has already started the process of reviewing COTM. We felt a good first step would be to solicit input and ideas from the general membership.

So this is the thread to share your ideas and opinions on COTM. What do you like about it? What dont you like? What should stay the same? What should change?

zuma

[Lostby7]

First and foremost one should have actually found (or at least looked for) the cache in order to vote for it.

[JimandLinda]

I think a certain “probationary” period before a cache can be nominated is in order…say, 6 monthes. This would give a cross section of cachers time to find a good cache to nominate.
Nominating the newest “Flavor of the Month” is not very accurate. If it’s THAT good, it will still be THAT good 6 monthes later, when more cachers have found it.
Limiting a COTM nomination to # of finders pretty much rules out Northern Wisconsin, where some of the most scenic caches are located!

Just my 2 cents worth.

[Captain and Mate]

@JimandLinda wrote:

I think a certain “probationary” period before a cache can be nominated is in order…say, 6 monthes. This would give a cross section of cachers time to find a good cache to nominate.
Nominating the newest “Flavor of the Month” is not very accurate. If it’s THAT good, it will still be THAT good 6 monthes later, when more cachers have found it.
Limiting a COTM nomination to # of finders pretty much rules out Northern Wisconsin, where some of the most scenic caches are located!

We would have to agree with JimandLinda. We seldom vote for COTM because we often are not familiar enough with the nominated caches to make a good choice. It seems voting for a cache because others liked it or because you know the owner aren’t good reasons.

[Astro_D]

I would like to see an email notification sent to nominees stating their cache was nominated. Our son had a cache nominated for COTM and we never knew about it until much much later.

[Barry Butrymowicz]

IMO I think we should just get rid of it. It’s a southern Wisconsin popularity contest.

[Team Black-Cat]

That’s one thing that might be fixed if we put our collective minds to it.

[Cache_boppin_BunnyFuFu]

I was thinking it should be about more “Showcasing” a specific cache, based on input from those who have done it. You know…”Why should others come to this cache???

[gotta run]

@sweetlife wrote:

IMO I think we should just get rid of it. It’s a southern Wisconsin popularity contest.

I had thought so as well but it’s not as bad as I first believed. In the past year there have been two caches from Green Bay win, one from the Wausau area, and one from north of Crandon, so if you cut the state in half, 1/3 of the COTM winners have been from northern WI. I suspect if you look at the cache density in the state that may reflect a similar breakdown.

A bigger issue–and one that might also address any southern WI concern–is addressing the “recency” issue. Requiring a cache to be in place and in good repair for X months before being eligible, as suggested here, is a great idea.

On the Left Side of the Road...

[RSplash40]

I have no interest in seeing this continue but suggest that other state caching associations should be checked and see if they have a COTM setup. We don’t always have to re-invent sliced bread.

[glorkar]

I don’t know about some of the others, but I don’t do the COTM mostly because of distance. I don’t have a lot of time to get out caching, and it seems like most of them are just too far away. Perhaps multiple, regional CsOTM? Also, due to my use of an antique GPS, I’ve never purchased a premium membership. So even if this month’s is 10 miles from me, I would never know.

[Buy_The_Tie]

It would be really easy to make this process / procedure into a behemoth. Please remember:

[cheezehead]

How about something like Recommend cache of the month? Go off the recommended list or start a new list. This may blow the KISS logic. But take monthy suggestions, and draw from a hat. One entery per suggested cache. Just an idea.

[TyeDyeSkyGuy]

BUMP

[Author]

Posts